I think the three required qualifications are : 1) do what the boss says, 2) speak English, 3) work for free
Qualifications for moderation
Sort:
hicetnunc wrote:
I think the three required qualifications are : 1) do what the boss says, 2) speak English, 3) work for free
Thats it? any automaton could do that, you could even build an algorithm to do that?
david wrote:
You're welcome
Please do not take it personally but I find your smug reaction quite odious.
If you can provide a valid reason why you qualify to be a moderator, please do so now and I may find it in my heart to offer you a reprieve after you make a public recantation.
No public recantation, is it considered a weakness? Ouch I did not consider my variations!
What is the first qualification for a moderator? Is it not an amiable countenance?
1. An amiable countenance.
2. No public racanting, its wussie.
Nov 8, 2016
0
#9
robbie_1969 wrote:
david wrote:
You're welcome
Please do not take it personally but I find your smug reaction quite odious.
If you can provide a valid reason why you qualify to be a moderator, please do so now and I may find it in my heart to offer you a reprieve after you make a public recantation.
It was an attempt at levity in yet another thread attacking the personal integrity of the moderators here on this site, so perhaps it was ill judged: I will therefore apologise for making a joke and simply state that such attacks are ill informed and unhelpful and are therefore going to be locked.
Cheers,
David
Nov 8, 2016
0
#10
Thread locked: Please direct concerns regarding mod actions directly to jdcannon.
To answer the questions:
The qualifications for being a moderator are:
1.) Active member of the site for 1 year. Not necessary to be premium member.
2.) No abuse history
3.) 18 years of age or older
Beyond that, you fill out an application and have an interview.
Can anyone tell me what the qualifications are to become a moderator on this site for I tell you truly that the moderation is appalling. Infact its the worst I have ever come across on the internet. Surely there should be some kind of qualifications that moderators have to reach prior to being appointed. Take for example this latest affront to our intelligence.
Last page seems well and truly off topic from the original post, while the first page has a lot of religious and political discussion - locking.
moderator
Lets get this straight, this thread went 991 posts and the reason that the thread was locked was because the moderator deemed that the first page has religious and political discussion. The First page???? Now I don't know about you but can anyone else discern just how inconsistent that is? 991 posts and they cite the first page as a reason to lock it. Its enough to make a man tear the back pockets right off his jeans in despair.
The second reason that is given is that the thread has veered off the original topic. Well run to the hills Ma Baker the Feds are comin! Threads often veer of topic. Is this in the terms of service that if a thread veers off topic it should be locked down? Can someone point me to that mandate? If no such mandate exists why is this moderator policing the forum like a tin hat dictator and locking threads that people were contributing to? Even if there is a mandate there are thousand of threads that veer of topic and never get locked.
To say that the forum moderation is inconsistent is being charitable to say the least and its really annoying to have thread after thread locked down because moderators police the forums rather than dealing with real issues. A piece of unsolicited advise, if its not broken leave it alone.